On Friedrich Nieztsche's 1888 book summarizing his thought and critiquing the founding myths of his society: traditional morality, free will, Socratic reason, and the idiocy of "Deutschland Uber Alles!"

Nietzsche defends instinct as the source of values, but these instincts must be "spiritualized" into frenzied creativity. Nietzsche as artist is an appealing figure to us, but he also praises Napoleon and says lots of nice things about war as the antidote to a complacent society sliding into decline. He thinks we're all degenerates, but we can't help it. So what does he actually want from us?

Nietzsche wrote this book in just over a week, and it's packed full of juicy quotes (like "What does not destroy me, makes me stronger") and psychological insights (e.g., virtue doesn't make you happy; being happy makes you tend to be virtuous). Wes, Mark, Dylan, and Seth sketch out the best and weirdest parts and try to figure out what Nietzsche would have to say about our world today, from social justice warriors to Louis CK.

The next step. For those into psychotherapy, it is the integration that comes organically from a clash of the parts of the self (instincts +) in a safe and supportive space. The therapies I know like this are jung and gestalt. There are probably lots of others.

My daughter was recently in a social studies class discussing some topical matter when one of the kids enthusiastically suggested that they have a debate on the issue. If the teacher had indulged this suggestion, he would have been privy to an instinct to conflict that is lively, productive, “easy”, and free, and which generates rational constraint as an effect that, in turn, acts upon all the participants. Such an exercise would undoubtedly have advanced the children’s “becoming”.

Hence, rationality in education need not be as Nietzsche suggests. Unfortunately, the teacher in this case dismissed the idea and insisted on continuing with his agenda of the day; an imposition which Nietzsche would have, and with good reason, found offensive.

In a nut shell, if you and I disagree about something and I wish to convince you that I am right then if I am to hope to be successful, I must make sense to you. Rationality (or “sense”) is, consequently, an emergent constraint on the discussion that arises from the conflict. There are, of course, qualifications and further details that need to be added in order to fill out the model.

Michael, I wonder if I am reading you correctly. You seem to say that by having discussions we would ultimately have to resort to rational constraint in order to be understood. I agree with this in theory, but I never see it play out. My guess is that it’s highly likely that the social studies class has a high probability of devolving into the kind of echo chamber/screaming match type of discourse we currently see. I agree it should be done because a good teacher could possibly help massage the discourse into a more persuasive mode, but that’s assuming the teacher has the ability to do that also. I sound really cynical I guess. And even if it remains civil, what about the Sofists? The people who argue for argument’s sake and never really have that sort of end goal of understanding and Truth? I wish I understood how this relates to Nietzsche, but I don’t. Perhaps we assume that all students are becoming? I wonder does N hold this kind of belief. Does he believe all people have this possibility for greatness and somehow it gets derailed?

It is a reasonably well established principle in self-organization that gradients of potentials or forces are minimized at the fastest rate possible given the constraints (MEPP). So, if you leave a window open in your house in the winter, the heat, that could have been utilized to do some work, will escape through that hole.

Now, a group of people who disagree with each other tend to generate something closely analogous to heat. We often, of course, speak of a heated debate. In these cases the aforementioned principle suggests that this “heat” will be dissipated at the fastest rate possible given the constraints. In other words, each individual is motivated to settle – that is, to get rid of discomfort, doubt, etc. (read “The Fixation of Belief” by C.S.Pierce) – as fast as they possibly can. So, if I can dominate you in a debate through threats, rhetorical flourishes, etc., or even if I can just walk out, I will do it.

It is here that we discover a proper role of power; that is, to hinder hindrances to constructive argumentation. In my career, there was only ever one incident where people were yelling and someone asked if they could leave. I said “no” and they stayed. Thereafter things improved.

It was a leap for me to think that the economy is self organizing and this is even bigger. I find it difficult to understand how human behavior can be considered self organizing in any way. How do we define order? chaos? What’s the timeline here? Are we talking billions of years or moment by moment order? I cannot apply the logic of self organization to these kinds of behavioral situations. I’d like to! The hard science part of my brain really wants to make sense of things in this way. Human behavior is far too complex and unpredictable, IMO, to try and pin down predictable outcomes based on a model of this kind. The reasons I am for the notion of classroom debates or public discussion have nothing to do with an attachment to the idea that if everyone just keeps talking somehow it will all work out. I certainly think it’s a step in the right direction. I just think the logical leap you make isn’t as certain for me.

to say that something (reasonableness) is needed/necessary for success isn’t to say it therefore ’emerges’, that defies both logic and experience, not sure what self-organization could have to do with an interaction between two distinct individuals, maybe the fellows should do a show on emergence, ideally with someone who studies actual cases from say one of the natural sciences.

Quite right. Something necessary to the achievement of an end is a means. But reason is also an end in this case. In a self-organizing entity, says Kant, everything is simultaneously an end and a means.

Thanks for keeping the political talk to a minimum. You guys are back to your best, back to the basics- examining philosophical texts, educating many of us on philosophy, and sharing your sharp and informative philosophical opinions. Excellent episode, keep up the good work!

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.